28 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

PEEFsmash, on 24 September 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

GIVE HIGHLANDER 80 MORE CT ARMOR, ASSAULTS ARE UNDERPOWERED YEP EVERYONE KNOWS IT CUZ YEAH LIKE I PLAYED SOME GAMES AND YEP ITS TRUE LIKE THEY DIE TOO EASY TO SPIDERS

You know, as much as you'd like to believe it not everything is about light mechs.

Khobai, on 24 September 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

Sounds about right to me. Assaults should be able to "assault" and currently they cant because they die in less than 10 seconds when being focus fired by 2+ mechs.

Actually they die in under 10 seconds when being shot by a Jagermech

[Khobai]

Quote

Actually they die in under 10 seconds when being shot by a Jagermech

Yep. That was a point I just made that a Jager can have more firepower than an Atlas despite being 35 less tons. Thats why tonnage limits are silly...

[Wolfways]

Khobai, on 24 September 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

Yep. That was a point I just made that a Jager can have more firepower than an Atlas despite being 35 less tons. Thats why tonnage limits are silly...

Yeah, it's strange how PGI keep insisting that there should be no "progression" from lights to assaults, yet assaults cost more and they are going to "balance" the matches by weight. Makes no sense at all.

[Khobai]

Quote

Yeah, it's strange how PGI keep insisting that there should be no "progression" from lights to assaults, yet assaults cost more and they are going to "balance" the matches by weight. Makes no sense at all.

Actually they seem to have done a complete 180 since last year. Last year they told us they wanted all weight classes to be equal and role warfare was going to provide that equality. Now they seem to want Assault mechs to be the highest level of progression the game has to offer and role warfare is non-existent.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 24 September 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

Not really. Because why would anyone want to take a 100 ton Atlas that only has 8 hardpoints when they could take a 65 Jagermech that also has 8 hardpoints (and better hardpoint locations too) AND gives their team a 35 ton advantage on top of that? Tonnage limits will basically make the Atlas completely useless. Although lighter assaults like the Stalker and Victor will still be popular, since they wont suck up your team's tonnage, and still carry significant firepower. Tonnage limits are definitely going to hurt the 90-100 tonners the most.

I'm going to try this again. In the current gameplay, heavies and assaults are considered the "average" or baseline classes because they are arguably the most common, with mediums and lights acting as weird support units for them. Under tonnage limits, heavies and assaults become less common and therefore lose their status as the "baseline" class to mediums (and maybe even lights too if the limits are set low enough). With the baseline set to classes weaker than heavies and assaults, heavies and assaults would become "comparatively stronger" in a tonnage limit environment than they are now. Basically, a heavy/assault mech's abilities stands out more if his team is mostly mediums and lights than if his team is mostly assaults and heavies. That Atlas example is probably a valid point due to being extreme but that's not the point of the argument.

Khobai, on 24 September 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

IMO role warfare is actually a much better way to balance weight classes than tonnage limits. If lights and mediums were given roles worth playing, then players would play them of their own free will, and thered be no need to impose tonnage limits in the first place.

This part I completely agree with.

Edited by FupDup, 24 September 2013 - 05:43 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

With the baseline set to classes weaker than heavies and assaults, heavies and assaults would become "comparatively stronger" in a tonnage limit environment than they are now

If all players were good I might agree with you. But the fact is youre going to get some very bad players in those assaults which are going to be nothing but a tonnage burden on their team. Where a bad player in a light or medium is far less of a tonnage burden.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 24 September 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

If all players were good I might agree with you. But the fact is youre going to get some very bad players in those assaults which are going to be nothing but a tonnage burden on their team. Where a bad player in a light or medium is far less of a tonnage burden.

That's a good point. Put all of the bad players in Locusts!

[FunkyFritter]

I wouldn't mind some slight adjustments to how much armor each section has. It's a little silly that the arms of an Atlas max out at 68 while the side torso has 84 points to cover both the front and back, even if all the weapons are in the arms it's often better to aim for the torso.

The current numbers make sense in TT because of the randomness when determining what section gets hit. Given the precision players in MWO have some adjustments to make disarming occasionally preferable to destroying could lead to some interesting tactics and choices.

[SkyCake]

in talking about tonnage limits. .. The biggest thing to consider is numbers of mechs. .. so if I get an Atlas and the other team gets an Atlas, then skill will more often then not determine the Victor. .. But if I take Atlas ands they take two or three of any other mech, then there is no way I'm going to make up that difference, especially with our cap based game modes. .. The Atlas would have to be as good as two to three mechs at least to make taking it worth while and its just not there... part of that problem is survivability. ie Armour/internals